Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26831505›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2016

The CATFISH study protocol: an evaluation of a water fluoridation scheme.

Michaela Goodwin, Richard Emsley, Michael Kelly, Eric Rooney, Matthew Sutton, Martin Tickle, Rebecca Wagstaff, Tanya Walsh, William Whittaker, Iain A Pretty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Michaela GoodwinThe Dental Health Unit, School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Williams House, Manchester Science Park, Manchester, M15 6SE, UK. michaela.goodwin@manchester.ac.uk.
Richard EmsleyCentre for Biostatistics, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, 1.304 Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. Richard.Emsley@manchester.ac.uk.
Michael KellyInstitute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Cambridge, CB2 OSR, UK. mk744@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Eric RooneyDental Observatory, NHS Central Lancashire, Preston Business Centre, Watling Street Road, Fulwood, PR2 8DY, UK. Eric.Rooney@phe.gov.uk.
Matthew SuttonJean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. Matt.Sutton@manchester.ac.uk.
Martin Tickle, Coupland 3 Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M15 6FH, UK. Martin.Tickle@manchester.ac.uk.
Rebecca WagstaffPublic Health England, North West, 1st Floor, York House, Ackhurst Business Park, Foxhole Road, Chorley, PR7 1NY, UK. Rebecca.Wagstaff@phe.gov.uk.
Tanya Walsh, Coupland 3 Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M15 6FH, UK. tanya.walsh@manchester.ac.uk.
William WhittakerJean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. William.Whittaker@manchester.ac.uk.
Iain A PrettyThe Dental Health Unit, School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Williams House, Manchester Science Park, Manchester, M15 6SE, UK. Iain.A.Pretty@manchester.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health 12/3000/40Department of Health DHCS/05/05/008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTooth decay is the commonest disease of childhood. We have known for over 90 years that fluoride can prevent tooth decay; it is present in nearly all toothpastes and can be provided in mouthwashes, gels and varnishes. The oldest method of applying fluoride is via the water supply at a concentration of 1 part per million. The two most important reviews of water fluoridation in the United Kingdom (the York Review and MRC Report on water fluoridation and health) concluded that whilst there was evidence to suggest water fluoridation provided a benefit in caries reduction, there was a need to improve the evidence base in several areas. METHODS/

designThis study will use a natural experiment to assess the incidence of caries in two geographical areas, one in which the water supply is returned to being fluoridated following a discontinuation of fluoridation and one that continues to have a non-fluoridated water supply. The oral health of two discrete study populations will be evaluated - those born 9 months after the water fluoridation was introduced, and those who were in their 1st year of school after the introduction of fluoridated water. Both populations will be followed prospectively for 5 years using a census approach in the exposed group along with matched numbers recruitment in a non-exposed control. Parents of the younger cohort will complete questionnaires every 6 months with child clinical examination at ages 3 and 5, whilst the older cohort will have clinical examinations only, at approximately 5, 7 and 11 years old. DISCUSSION: This project provides a unique opportunity to conduct a high quality evaluation of the reintroduction of a water fluoridation scheme, which satisfies the inclusion criteria stipulated by the York systematic review and can address the design issues identified in the MRC report. The research will make a major contribution to the understanding of the costs and effects of water fluoridation in the UK in the 21st Century. Its findings will help inform UK policy on this important public health intervention and may have a significant impact on public health policy in other developed countries. There is currently true equipoise in relation to the effectiveness of water fluoridation in contemporary populations and while the biological plausibility is well established, there is a need to examine impact on the changing epidemiological status of dental decay.

Indexed as

FluoridationOral HealthDental CariesHumansUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID26831505
PMCPMC4736087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.